From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Junk I Want You to Know

There are just three things (for now):

1.) I have not come to Conservapedia seeking it as an alternative to Wikipedia. I do not think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia.
2.) I have not come to Conservapedia to conduct sabotage. I am interested to see how my opinions are received here. I have at no point created or contributed to factual articles in any way that deliberately reflects any bias I may hold as an individual, nor do I have any future plans to do so.
3.) I do not understand why Conservapedia's creator(s) felt it necessary to create Conservapedia. This statement has two parts:
a.) I can certainly appreciate that different individuals have differing opinions and views on various issues. I do not think that Wikipedia and/or its articles are immune to this rule
b) Given the nature of Wikipedia, and the freedom that all users have to contribute new facts, views, facets, sources, etc. to its articles, I do not understand why those dissatisfied with Wikipedias content would not take it upon themselves to impart changes to said articles in an effort to improve them.
In short, I do not understand why those individuals who began Conservapedia, as an effort to compensate for perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, did not simply enact what changes they believed necessary upon the articles contained in Wikipedia.

That's all! I certainly hope that I have not offended anyone with anything that I have entered here, as that was and is absolutely not my intention in any way.

Junk I'd Like to Discuss, but Won't Clutter Discussion Pages With

From Talk:Main Page

Quoting Aschlafly:

The claims of an Old Earth are based on circular reasoning about radiometric dating. Most likely decay rates have changed along with the age of the earth. It is logically absurd to use a decay rate observed now to make claims about the history of that decay rate, and thus the age of the earth.--Aschlafly 11:14, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
On what basis do you propose that it is "logically absurd to use a decay rate observed now to make claims about the history of that decay rate"? Is this to be taken as a general statement, that observations made today cannot be used to make claims about the past? I should hope not, for such a statement would be rather difficult to swallow, and certainly not sit well with History teachers, Geologists, Archaeologists or any Priest, Pastor or Preacher.
Personal tools